IMEIwoko 

■ i_ 


^ . LI  ■ 


-7^ 


SPECIAL  REPORT 


INTERFERENGE  IN  FOREIGN  MISSIONS, 


GEORGE  W.  WOOD,  D.  D. 


e«'{i 

i- 


• 


r-<* 


M 


j 


*fUi’ 


V 


MKINtt 

A I ^ 

) ^ i 1'='  INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


A 


SPECIAL  REPORT 

PRESENTED  AT  THE  MEETING  OF  THE 


AMERICAN  BOARD  OF  COMMISSIONERS 

FOR 


FOREIGN  MISSIONS, 


SEPTEMBER,  1866. 


BY  GEORGE  W.  WOOD,  D.  D. 


BOSTON: 

PRINTED  FOR  THE  BOARD  BY  T.  R.  MARVIN  & SON. 

1 8 6 6 . 


At  the  Annual  Meeting  of  the  American  Board,  held  at  Pittsfield,  Mass.,  in 
September,  1866,  Secretary  Wood,  in  behalf  of  the  Prudential  Committee, 
presented  a Special  Report  upon  the  subject  of  interference  by  one  Foreign 
Missionary  Society  with  the  operations  of  another,  in  the  prosecution  of  their 
work  among  the  unevangelized.  Though  this  Report  was  now  called  for  by , 
and  has  special  reference  to,  certain  recent  movements,  it  is  upon  a subject  in 
regard  to  which  correct  views,  and  a judicious,  courteous,  and  truly  Christian 
course  of  conduct,  on  the  part  of  all  who  are  engaged  in  this  rhissionary  work, 
must  ever  be  of  great  importance.  The  Report,  and  the  action  taken  by  the 
Board  in  connection  with  it,  are  presented  on  the  following  pages. 


SPECIAL  EEPORT 

ON 

INTERFEEENCE  IN  FOREIGN  MISSIONS, 


It  is  deemed  expedient  to  lay  before  the  Board,  at  this  time,  a brief 
historic  recital,  and  a re-statement  of  the  views  of  the  Prudential 
Committee  touching  interference  of  different  Missionary  Societies  and 
Boards  with  each  other,  in  conducting  their  operations. 

Thirty-three  years  ago,  the  Committee  reported  that  instructions 
had  been  forwarded  to  the  Sandwich  Islands  to  arrest  the  establish- 
ment, previously  sanctioned,  of  a mission  at  the  Washington  Islands, 
as  it  had  been  ascertained  that  the  London  Missionary  Society  regarded 
that  group  as  within  their  proper  field,  and  wished  to  occupy  it.  This 
announcement  was  accompanied  with  the  declaration,  that,  “ it  is  con- 
trary to  their  [the  Prudential  Committee’s]  general  principles  to 
interfere  with  other  missionary  societies.”  The  Board  gave  its 
approval  to  that  action  and  affirmation. 

Four  years  later,  in  1837,  in  reporting  on  the  mission  then  just 
commenced  at  Singapore,  the  Committee  expressed  the  judgment  that 
Singapore,  Calcutta,  Madras,  Bombay,  and  similar  commercial  ports, 
being  “the  natural  entrances  to  great  fields  of  missionary  labor,” 
must  “necessarily  be,  to  some  extent,  common  ground”  to  different 
societies  ; that  is,  as  was  explained,  so  far  as  to  allow  these  societies’ 
having  printing  establishments,  and  what  might  be  necessary  to  make 
them  effective,  together  with  liberty,  at  the  same  time,  to  perform  all 
kinds  of  missionary  labor  “ within  reasonable  territorial  bounds.” 
The  Board  concurred  in  this  sentiment,  and  adopted  the  following 
resolution : 

“ Resolved.  That  the  Board  contemplate  with  fraternal  interest  the  efforts 
of  evangelical  missionary  societies  existing  both  in  this  country  and  in 
Europe,  to  extend  the  knowledge  of  the  Gospel  of  Christ  among  the 
heathen,  and  will  endeavor  to  promote  the  best  understanding,  at  home  and 
abroad,  between  their  agents  and  missionaries  and  our  own.” 

At  the  next  annual  meeting  (in  1838)  a paper  from  the  Pruden- 
tial Committee  was  read  to  the  Board  by  the  Foreign  Secretary,  on 
the  subject  of  interference  in  missions.  It  gave  an  extract  from  a 
letter  received  from  the  London  Missionary  Society,  which  cordially 
endorsed  the  principle' stated  in  the  Eeport  of  1837,  and  suggested 
that  societies  should  furnish  seasonable  information  to  each  other 


4 


INTERFEKENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


concerning  their  plans,  •which  might  affect  the  interests  of  others. 
The  omission  to  correspond  with  that  Society  concerning  the  con- 
templated mission  at  Singapore,  the  Committee  stated  w^as  an  inad- 
vertence, and  they  added  : “That  Society  preceded  us  at  Singapore, 
and  our  going  there  at  all  is  justified  only  in  view  of  its  being  one  of 
the  great  marts  of  commerce,  which,  for  the  present,  must  be  common 
ground.”  The  avoidance  of  interference  wdth  others  in  adopting  new 
plans  was  set  forth  as  of  vital  importance.  To  accomplish  this  it  was 
suggested,  1.  That  each  Society  claim  only  such  territory  as  it  might 
have  a reasonable  prospect  of  occupying  without  long  delay,  and  well 
cultivating.  2.  That  “ certain  of  the  great  centres  of  human  society 
and  marts  of  commerce  ” be  regarded  as  open  to  all,  with  such  a 
“ sectional  division,”  and  other  arrangements,  as  will  be  for  the  har- 
mony and  mutual  advantage  of  the  missions  sent  to  them.  3.  That 
elsewhere  tlie  different  societies  should  scrupulously  respect  the 
territorial  limits  of  each  other’s  operations  in  heathen  lands.  4. 
When  any  large  section  of  the  missionary  field  is  occupied  by  one 
society,  another  society  contemplating  operations  within  its  bounds 
should,  in  the  first  instance,  communicate  with  the  society  already  in 
the  field.  The  Board  adopted  a series  of  resolutions  atfirming  the 
views  thus  expressed,  and  directed  the  Prudential  Committee  to  cor- 
respond with  other  societies,  as  they  might  think  proper,  for  the 
purpose  of  securing  a satisfactory  understanding  among  them. 

This  was  twenty-eight  years  ago.  Tlien,  and  previously,  it  was  a 
cardinal  principle  with  this  Board  to  avoid  injuring  the  interests  of 
any  class  of  evangelical  Christians  who  sought,  under  whatever  forms 
of  worship  and  church  order,  to  spread  the  saving  knowledge  of  Christ 
among  the  heathen,  or  complete  a work  of  evangelization  which  they 
had  well  begun.  That  principle  the  Board  has  adhered  to  since. 
The  Committee  are  not  aware  that  a complaint  of  intrusion  has  been 
or  can  be  urged  against  any  of  its  missions.  In  India,  (excepting, 
lately,  Madras,)  and  Ceylon ; in  Africa,  and  Persia,  and  Turkey,  and 
Syria,  and  Greece  ; in  Oceanica,  and  among  Indian  Tribes  on  this 
continent,  its  missions  are  in  distinct  and  well  defined  fields,  which 
they  entered  when  unoccupied,  and  which  they  cultivate,  in  general, 
as  fully  as  is  done  by  any  other  missionary  agencies  under  similar 
conditions.  Preceded  in  China  only  by  the  London  Society,  the 
American  Board  has  rejoiced  to  work  in  harmony  with  others  who 
have  followed  it  in  the  ports  opened  to  Christian  labor,  and  now 
desires  to  see  separate  fields  taken  possession  of  by  different  mission- 
ary bodies,  as  Divine  providence  may  permit,  for  the  Christianization 
of  the  vast  interior  of  that  empire. 

The  Committee  are  happy  to  testify  that  the  principle  of  non- 
interference is  generally  acknowledged,  and  seldom  infringed,  by 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


5 


evangelical  missionary  agencies  in  the  foreign  work.  The  Earl  of 
Shaftesbury  has  spoken  of  it  as  “ the  received  principle  of  missionary 
operations.”  In  accordance  with  it,  the  American  Board  and  English 
societies  operating  in  the  Pacific  Ocean,  have  agreed  on  boundaries 
there ; the  Church  and  London  Societies  have  done  the  same  for 
Madagascar ; various  societies  the  same  in  Africa  and  India.  In 
conformity  with  it,  the  London  Society,  in  1835,  declined  to  receive 
Mr.  Rhenius,  and  other  excellent  missionaries  of  the  Church  Society, 
who  left  the  service  of  the  latter  in  Tiuuevelly,  and  sought  to  come  under 
the  patronage  of  the  former,  which  had  a mission  in  the  adjoining 
province  of  Travancore.  Thus  the  American  Board  and  the  American 
Methodist  Episcopal  Society  divide  between  them  the  Bulgarian  field 
in  Turkey ; and  the  Church  Missionary  Society  has  refused  to  listen 
to  urgent  solicitations  to  enter  among  the  Armenians,  either  in  the 
provinces  or  the  capital.  When,  less  than  three  years  ago,  strong 
appeals  were  made  by  members  of  the  Church  of  England,  for  aid  to 
be  extended  to  a company  of 'converts  in  Constantinople,  who,  with 
an  able  pastor  at  their  head,  had  withdrawn  from  connection  with  the 
American  mission,  and  pleaded  conscientious  convictions  in  favor  of 
an  Episcopal  “ Reformed  Armenian  ” movement,  the  Committee  of 
that  great  and  noble  society,  after  mature  deliberation,  unanimously 
declared  “ that  the  Church  ]\Iissionary  Society  could  not  give  ” the 
desired  “ countenance  or  support,  as  it  would  be  an  unjustifiable  in- 
terference with  the  great  and  good  work  for  so  many  years  carried  on 
by  the  American  Board  of  Missions  in  Turkey,  with  the  manifest 
blessing  of  the  God  of  missions.”  The  return,  soon  afterwards,  of  the 
disaffected  party  to  cordial  relations  with  the  mission  of  this  Board, 
and  other  subsequent  developments,  attest  the  wisdom  as  well  as 
Christian  courtesy  and  justice  of  that  decision. 

The  sentiment  adverse  to  interference,  and  favorable  to  the  division 
of  fields  and  arrangements  of  agencies  necessary  to  prevent  it,  has, 
on  the  whole,  gained  strength  in  late  years.  Exceptions  to  this  state- 
ment are  presented  by  two  classes  which  bear  the  Christian  name.  The 
first  consists  of  the  missionary  propagandists  of  the  Church  of  Rome. 
These,  claiming  that  that  church  is  the  only  repository  of  truth  and 
salvation  for  the  world,  are  justified  by  their  principles  in  following  us, 
as  they  do  with  persistent  zeal,  wherever  we  go  among  the  heathen, 
and  seizing,  so  far  as  they  can,  the  fruits  of  Protestant  labor  and 
expenditure.  Their  position  is  frankly  avowed.  They  assert  a 
right  to  oppose  and  despoil  our  work,  and  we  meet  them  as  we  do 
Pagan,  Mohammedan,  and  other  open  enemies  to  it. 

Recent  events  indicate  that  a similar  policy  is  likely  to  be  pursued 
by  the  highly  ritualistic  portions  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church. 
These  appear  to  be  far  more  in  sympathy  with  the  Church  of  Rome 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS, 


than  with  non-prelatic,  evangelical  Christians,  and  increasingly  ani- 
mated by  its  spirit.  In  a late  instance,  which  is  yet  happily  without 
a parallel  in  the  history  of  Protestant  missions,  an  aggression  from 
that  source  has  been  made  on  a field  of  small  dimensions,  occupied  by 
this  Board  for  more  than  forty  years,  and  at  least  as  thoroughly  and 
successfully  cultivated  as  any  field  of  like  character  and  equal  extent 
has  been  by  any  missionary  agency  in  the  world.  The  distinguished 
missionary.  Dr.  Duff,  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland,  in  a speech  in 
1853,  deprecated  the  entrance  of  any  two  denominations  into  the  same 
field  ; and,  pleading  that  none,  for  example,  should  intrude  upon  the 
Baptists  in  the  Orissa  province  in  India,  or  on  the  London  Society  in 
Travancore,  or  the  Church  of  England  Societies  in  Tinnevelly,  because 
of  “ the  complete  pre-occupation  ” thus  effected  of  those  territories,  he 
said  ; “ I would  as  soon  leap  into  the  Ganges  as  venture  to  go  near 
Tinnevelly,  except  as  a brother,  to  see  the  good  work  that  is  going  on.’' 
Not  such  are  the  views  of  the  supporters  of  the  new  mission  which 
has  been  planted  in  a field  in  which  the  missionary  force,  compared 
with  the  numbers  of  the  people,  was  eighteen  times  greater,  and  the 
converts  brought  to  the  Lord’s  table  Avere  more  than  thirty  fold  a 
larger  proportion  of  the  population  than  in  the  province  which  Dr. 
Duff  considered  a possession  sacred  to  those  Avho  had  undertaken  its 
Christian  culture.  If  objections  are  valid  to  efforts  on  the  same 
ground  when  there  is  a desire  of  simply  fraternal  co-operation,  Avhat 
shall  be  thought  of  an  invasion  of  direct  proselytism  ; and  when,  instead 
of  an  endeavor  to  build  up  and  help  extend  Christian  organizations 
previously  founded,  war  is  made  upon  them,  and  it  is  proclaimed  that 
what  has  been  done  by  the  first  evangelizers  in  the  field  is  to  be 
regarded  merely  as  preparing  the  way  for  the  invaders  to  come  in, 
with  a not  concealed  intent  to  gain,  if  possible,  the  whole  land  to 
themselves.*  To  say  nothing  of  the  magnanimity  of  such  policy,  we 
are  constrained  to  ask : Is  it  Christian  ? 

“ Successors  of  the  Apostles,”  in  the  work  of  establishing  the 
church  of  Christ  among  the  heathen,  have  for  their  guidance  the 
example  of  the  Apostles.  Did  not  the  great  Missionary  to  the  Gen- 
tiles give  us  the  true  missionary  principle  in  his  choice  of  fields  and 
methods  of  labor  ? His  testimony  concerning  himself  was  : “ Yea, 
so  have  I strived  to  preach  the  Gospel,  not  where  Christ  was  named 
lest  I should  build  upon  another  man’s  foundation.  But  as  it  is 
written,  To  whom  he  was  not  spoken  of,  they  shall  see ; and  they 
tliat  have  not  heard  shall  understand.”  Unhappily,  it  is  not  yet  difiS- 
cult  to  find  accessible  portions  of  the  world  in  which  the  name  of 

• “We  owe  them  (the  first  missionaries)  many  thanks  for  having  prepared  the  way 
for  us  by  familiarizing  the  people  with  these  mighty  truths.” — Past.  Address  by 
Bishop  Staley,  Honolulu,  p.  11. 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS, 


7 


Christ  is  not  heard,  or  where  the  truths  which  are  essential  to  salva- 
tion are  not  understood.  The  Bishop  of  London  recently  observed,  in 
a public  speech  : “ It  has  been  urged  that  there  is  a general  law  of 
comity  in  these  matters  which  should  prevent  any  missionary  body 
from  trespassing  upon  the  fields  of  labor  of  others — a law  Avhich  I 
fully  recognize,  because  I feel  that  heathenism  is  wide  enough,  and 
there  is  room  for  all,  without  interfering  with  one  another,  to  labor  in 
some  different  portion  of  the  field.” 

Interference,  then,  is  unnecessary.  All  the  followers  of  Christ  can 
take  part  in  spreading  the  Gospel  without  interfering  with  one  another. 
Economy,  and  the  best  results,  require  the  choice  of  separate  fields  ; 
for  the  light  is  most  diffused  when  kindled  at  many  centres.  Friction 
in  this  way  is  avoided.  The  collisions  of  rivalry  on  the  same  ground 
produce  deplorable  effects.  The  temptation  to  turn  aside  from  a field 
of  hard,  and  as  yet  unrewarded  labor,  and^  to  reap  fruits  of  others’ 
toil,  or  at  least  work  on  soil  which  others  have  found  more  productive, 
is  often  very  strong but  this  cannot  be/justified.  Such  encroach- 
ment is  felt  as  a wrong  by  the  previous  workers ; and  it  is  well  if  they 
do  not  show  human  infirmity  in  resenting  it.  The  trespassers  on 
others’  inclosures  are  under  a dangerous  inducement,  in  defending 
their  aggression,  to  depreciate  and  misrepresent  the  character  and 
labors  of  those  whom  they  thus  injure.  How  else  shall  we  account 
for  the  efforts  to  bring  reproach  upon  the  mission  of  this  Board  at 
the  Hawaiian  Islands,  by  the  retailing  of  old,  exploded  calumnies,  by 
gentlemen  whose  love  of  truth  we  would  not  impeach,  and  even  by 
high  dignitaries  of  a Christian  church  ? Surely,  nothing  but  the 
exigencies  of  a false  position,  opening  the  ear  to  testimony  unworthy 
of  credit,  could  lead  to  the  utterance,  by  such  lips,  of  statements 
utterly  at  variance  with  facts  that  are  incontestable,  and  some  of 
which  are  known  to  the  world.  By  this  means  the  enemies  of  Chris- 
tian missions  are  made  to  rejoice,  and  their  friends  in  all  Christendom 
caused  to  mourn. 

But  more  to  be  deprecated  still  are  the  legitimate  effects  of  such  an 
aggression  on  native  converts,  and  the  people  at  large.  Its  influence 
may  be,  and  in  the  particular  instance  above  referred  to  it  seems 
likely  to  be,  by  God’s  grace,  overruled  for  good  ; but  still  much  evil 
must  arise.  Churches  composed  of  babes  in  Christ,  with  the  little 
knowledge  and  moral  strength  which  converts  from  heathenism  must 
be  expected  to  possess,  are  easily  desolated  and  rent  by  contentions. 
It  was  so  in  the  churches  founded  by  the  Apostles.  Two  opposing 
ecclesiastical  systems  cannot,  without  great  harm,  be  presented  in 
rivalry  before  such  communities.  Bishop  Selwyn,  the  faithful  occu- 
pant of  the  English  Episcopal  See  in  New  Zealand,  declared  himself 
against  such  a presentation  even  when  there  may  be  the  utmost 


8 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


charity  among  the  missionaries,  and  said  : “We  make  a rule  never  to 
introduce  controversy  among  a native  people,  or  to  impair  the  sim- 
plicity of  their  faith.  If  the  fairest  openings  for  missionary  effort 
lie  before  us,  yet  if  the  ground  has  been  pre-occupied  by  any  other 
religious  body,  we  forbear  to  enter.” 

This  declaration  of  Bishop  Selwyn,  honorable  to  himself  and  the 
church  which  he  represented,  implies  an  acknowledgment  that  open- 
ings to  missionary  enterprise  may  invite  an  entrance  where  the  ground 
is  really  pre-occupied.  No  field  is  so  fully  cultivated  but  that  other 
laborers  may  find  work  to  do  therein.  Invitations  to  enter  may  be 
extended  by  parties  in  it.  There  is  often  little  difficulty  in  procuring 
such  invitations,  if  an  ear  is  ready  to  be  given  to  them.  Tiiere  are 
always  secular  interests  to  be  promoted,  and  selfish  ends  to  be  gained. 
Disaffection  towards  their  missionary  guides  may  sometimes  occur, 
on  personal  grounds ; or  there  may  be  restiveness  under  a pressure 
necessary  to  the  healthful  development  of  the  nascent  Christian 
communities  in  self-support  and  self-government.  Sympathy  with 
something  new  in  doctrine  or  forms  may  show  itself  among  the  people, 
or  on  the  part  of  their  civil  rulers.  But  none  of  these  things  can 
justify  the  introduction  of  religious  strife  into  such  fields  as  are  here 
spoken  of.  To  do  no  more  than  turn  away  the  minds  of  weak  and 
unstable  converts  to  questions  of  differences  in  ecclesiastical  polity, 
modes  of  worship,  and  doctrinal  peculiarities,  when  their  interest 
ought  to  be  concentrated  on  the  simple  saving  truths  of  the  Gospel, 
and  the  building  up  of  institutions  yet  in  their  infancy,  is  to  do  great 
harm.  This  is  aggravated  when  native  agents  are  drawn  away,  and 
churches  are  tempted  by  offers  of  increased  pecuniary  help  ; and 
discipline  is  rendered  more  difficult  by  receiving  to  communion,  and 
perhaps  also  employment,  persons  who  fall  under  church  censure 
administered  according  to  the  principles  of  the  religious  body  in 
previous  possession  of  the  ground.  If  such  competitions  should  ever 
be  allowed  to  arise,  ought  they  not  to  be  adjourned  at  least  until  the 
accessible  wastes  of  heathenism  are  more  largely  inclosed,  and  suffi- 
cient time  has  been  granted  for  growth  of  ability  to  meet  the  shock  ? 

Each  of  the  several  ecclesiastical  systems  is,  in  the  eyes  of  its  advocates, 
more  scriptural  and  excellent  than  any  other ; and  its  universal  preva- 
lence is  to  them  a proper  object  of  desire.  A particular  mission  may 
not  be  conducted  in  the  best  manner  ; or,  however  conducted,  it  may 
yield  unsatisfactory  results.  But  does  any  such  consideration  annul 
the  evident  dictate  of  Christian  wisdom  and  duty,  that  the  disciples  of 
Christ,  who  are  brought  under  equal  responsibility  and  endowed  with 
equal  rights,  by  the  command  addressed  equally  to  all,  to  “ go  into  all 
the  world  and  preach  the  Gospel  to  every  creature,”  should  so  shape 
their  action  as  not  to  embarrass  and  hinder  one  another  in  obeying  it  ? 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


9 


The  argument  from  alleged  defects  and  want  of  success  is  one  liable 
always  to  be  controverted.  It  is  by  no  means  available  only  to  those 
who  have  lately  chosen  to  make  it  their  defense  for  a course  of  action 
wliich  is  visited  with  the  condemnation  of  the  great  body  of  evangel- 
ical Christians  throughout  the  world.  If  we  were  to  imitate  an  un- 
worthy example,  the  discredit  of  which  belongs  alone  to  the  individuals 
who  have  furnished  or  sanctioned  it,  it  would  be  easy  to  make  out  a 
similar  justification  for  our  going,  with  what  we  could  plausibly  claim 
to  be  our  better  ecclesiastical  polity  and  methods  of  missionary  work- 
ing, into  a field  long  possessed  by  the  Church  of  England  ; for  in  no 
field  cultivated  by  a mission  of  tlie  American  Board  have  such  lament- 
able developments  been  witnessed,  on  which  a charge  of  grievous 
missionary  failure  might,  with  much  appearance  of  truth,  be  founded, 
as  have  recently  occurred  in  New  Zealand,  in  one  of  the  most  suc- 
cessful of  the  missions  of  that  Church.  But  God  forbid  that  we 
should  thus  aggravate  an  afiliction  which  calls  forth  our  deepest  sym- 
pathy, and  in  which  we  see  no  just  ground  for  impeaching  the  fidelity 
or  worth  of  the  agency  employed. 

In  conclusion,  the  following  affirmations  are  submitted  to  the  con- 
sideration of  the  Board : 

1.  The  Apostolic  rule  of  proclaiming  the  Gospel  where  its  sound 
has  not  been  heard,  not  building  on  other  men’s  foundations  and 
boasting  in  a line  of  things  made  ready  to  our  hands,  is  one  to  be 
acknowledged  as  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of  the  Gospel,  honor- 
able to  the  Christian  name,  and  of  the  highest  expediency  in  couduct- 
ina:  foreign  missions. 

2.  For  different  denominations  of  evangelical  Christians  to  operate 
upon  the  same  heathen  or  unevangelized  people,  or  among  the  same 
people  just  emerging  into  the  light  of  a saving  Christianity,  is  earnest- 
ly to  be  deprecated,  as  unnecessary  to  a full  scope  for  missionary 
exertion,  an  uneconomical  distribution  of  missionary  agencies,  embar- 
rassing in  the  carrying  out  of  wise  and  necessary  measures  of  mis- 
sionary policy,  endangering  rivalry  and  conflict  of  interests  between 
the  missions  by  effects  produced  on  native  helpers,  schools,  congrega- 
tions and  churches  belonging  to  each,  and  sometimes  leading  to  dis- 
tracting and  otherwise  injurious  controversies  between  the  missions 
and  their  friends  and  supporters  respectively. 

3.  With  the  partial  exception  of  certain  great  centres  of  population, 
and  commercial  ports  which,  being  natural  entrances  to  different  in- 
land fields,  should  to  a certain  extent  be  considered  common  ground, 
wherever  missions  labor  among  a people  speaking  the  same  language, 
they  ought  to  confine  themselves  within  well  defined  geographical 
dividing  lines ; and  native  converts  educated  by  one  mission,  em- 
ployed by  it,  perhaps  ordained  to  the  ministry  by  it,  should  not  be 


10 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


taken  into  employment  by  another  mission  without  the  cheerful  consent 
of  the  one  from  which  they  come  ; since  the  contrary  course,  especially 
if  higher  wages  are  also  given,  works  strongly  against  the  desirable  end 
of  raising  up  vigorous,  self-governing,  self-supporting,  native  Christian 
communities. 

4.  All  evangelical  missions  and  their  supporters  ought  so  to  rise 
above  partisan  feeling,  whether  it  be  “ sectarian  ” or  “ churchly,”  as 
to  cherish  a spirit  of  unity  and  brotherly  love  towards  one  another, 
each  rejoicing  in  the  success  of  every  other,  and  instead  of  disparag- 
ing and  hindering  others,  each  doing  what  is  consistent  with  truth  to 
sustain  the  entire  body  of  evangelical  missions  in  the  good  opinion  of 
the  Christian  Church  and  of  the  world. 

This  paper  was  referred  to  a Special  Committee,  consisting  of 
Dr.  William  A.  Stearns,  Hon.  William  E.  Dodge,  Dr.  William 
Patton,  Joseph  S.  Ropes,  Esq.,  Dr.  S.  H.  Marsh,  Rev.  C.  C.  Parker, 
and  Rev.  S.  R.  Dennen.  This  Committee  subsequently  reported 
as  follows  : — 

The  Committee  on  the  Report  read  by  one  of  the  Secretaries,  Rev. 
Dr.  Wood,  entitled  “ Interference  in  Foreign  Missions,”  have  con- 
sidered the  Report  as  fully  as  their  limited  time  would  allow.  It  is 
in  their  judgment,  a clear,  eminently  Christian  and  satisfactory  exhibi- 
tion of  principles  and  considerations  on  the  subject  to  which  it  relates, 
necessary  to  be  put  forth  at  this  time,  and  adapted  to  meet  the  views, 
not  only  of  this  Board,  but  of  all  iutelligent  and  unprejudiced  Chris- 
tians. 

Protestant  Christianity  is  sustained  by  numerous  denominations. 
It  is  impossible  to  unite  them  at  present,  and  equally  impossible  for 
any  person,  or  class,  to  belong  to  them  all.  We  must  necessarily 
work,  if  we  work  at  all,  in  the  organizations  with  which  we  are 
specially  connected. 

If  the  several  organizations  which  agree  in  most  of  the  great  prin- 
ciples of  the  Gospel,  and  have  essentially  the  same  spirit,  wdll  make 
common  cause  in  the  conversion  of  the  world,  we  may,  notwithstand- 
ing our  diversities,  expect  rapid  progress  to  be  made  in  the  destruc- 
tion of  heathenism,  and  in  that  renewal  of  the  race  which  the  Scrip- 
tures foretell.  But  if  we  spend  our  strength  in  contending  with  each 
other,  in  proselyting  from  each  other,  and  in  attempting  to  do  over 
each  other’s  work,  even  though  we  may  think  we  might  do  it  better, 
we  shall  both  fail  in  our  main  object,  and  bring  the  cause  of  missions 
and  the  religion  of  Christ  into  contempt.  It  is  as  true  of  churches 
as  of  individuals,  and  as  true  now  as  it  was  eighteen  hundred  years 
ago,  that,  “ if  we  bite  and  devour  one  another,  we  shall  be  consumed 
one  of  another.” 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


11 


Now  we  have  numerous  Missionary  Associations  which  desire  to 
have  an  efficient  part  in  the  conversion  of  the  world.  The  constitu- 
ency which  sustains  them  is  loyal  to  Christ,  and  feels  pressed  by  his 
last  command  and  hy  the  condition  of  perishing  man,  to  preach  his 
Gospel  to  every  creature.  Each  organization  prefers,  of  course,  its 
own  methods  ; but  can  any  one  of  them  believe  it  a duty,  or  afford  to 
set  the  others  aside,  or  throw  hindrances  in  their  way  ? Interference 
of  the  kind  here  contemplated  would  seem  to  proceed  on  such  a 
presumption.  But  if  not,  nothing  could  tend  more  to  dishearten 
and  paralyze  the  energies  of  God’s  people  in  one  denomination, 
than  to  have  their  work  overthrown,  or  liable  to  be  overthrown,  by 
another. 

The  friends  of  missions  are  deeply  grieved,  not  to  say  indignant, 
and  we  wonder  not  at  the  sensation  which  has  been  manifested  in  this 
Board,  in  view  of  tlie  course  taken  by  certain  ecclesiastical  officials  in 
reference  to  the  Sandwich  Islands.  Is  all  the  rest  of  the  world  con- 
verted ? Are  there  no  dark  spots  on  which  even  the  highest  of  high- 
church  missions  can  throw  the  first  rays  of  light  ? Or  must  we  uuder- 
stand  that  tliere  are  forms  of  Christianity  which  have  no  evangelizing 
power  till  other  missionaries  “have  prepared  the  way,  by  familiarizing 
the  people  with  these  mighty  truths?”  Even  on  this  supposition, 
would  not  Christian  wisdom  demand  that  such  laborers  should  spend 
their  strength  against  the  old  and  established  churches,  rather  than  to 
throw  elements  of  contention  into  Christ’s  feeble  folds  ? 

“ Take  heed  that  ye  offend  not  one  of  these  little  ones.”  “ Him 
that  is  weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye,  but  not  to  doubtful  disputations.” 
“ Whatsoever  ye  would  that  men  should  do  to  you,  do  ye  even  so  to 
them.”  To  say  nothing  of  those  old  commandments, — “ Thou  shall 
not  bear  false  witness,”  and  “ Thou  shall  not  covet,” — should  not 
these  and  such  like  exhortations  of  Scripture  assist  us  in  settling 
questions  like  that  which  is  before  us  ? 

We  would  not,  however,  even  seem  to  censure,  without  discrimina- 
tion. We  are  happy  to  believe,  that  courses  of  action  such  as  we  here 
condemn  are  not  approved  by  English  Christians  generally,  nor  by 
most  of  those  members  of  the  Church  of  England  who  might  most 
naturally  be  expected  to  sustain  them.  The  noble  sentiments  express- 
ed by  Dr.  Duff,  Bishop  Selwyn,  the  Bishop  of  London,  and  other 
devoted  servants  of  Christ,  in  different  ecclesiastical  connections,  will 
doubtless  be  accepted  by  this  Board  with  fraternal  appreciation,  and 
as  worthy  to  be  acted  on  by  all  bodies  of  evangelizing  Christians. 
They  are  in  accordance  with  the  sentiments  of  the  Board,  put  forth 
more  than  thirty  years  ago,  namely,  that  “ it  is  contrary  to  their 
general  principles  to  interfere  with  other  missionary  societies,” — a 
doctrine  from  which  it  has  never  knowingly  departed. 


12 


INTERFERENCE  IN  MISSIONS. 


Wliile  we  believe  that  our  American  missions  have  been  successful 
almost  beyond  a parallel,  we  confess  that  no  churches  on  earth,  or 
measures  to  establish  them,  since  the  times  of  the  Apostles,  have  ever 
risen  above  the  possibilities  of  criticism.  We  invite  observation,  we 
accept  free  remark.  From  the  enemies  of  missions  we  expect  mis- 
apprehension and  false  statements.  But  we  cannot  accept  calumnies 
from  the  professed  friends  of  Christ  without  obeying  his  injunction, 
“ If  thy  brother  trespass  against  thee,  rebuke  him.” 

Christian  frankness  requires  us  to  say,  that  these  last  remarks  have 
been  called  forth  by  unjust  and  injurious  statements  made  by  Bishop 
Staley  and  others  associated  with  him,  respecting  our  mission  at  the 
Sandwich  Islands.  We  are  willing,  however,  to  presume,  in  cliarity, 
tliat  they  were  made  under  the  influence  of  wrong  information,  or 
proceeded  from  a condition  of  mind  not  adapted  to  clear  perceptions 
of  the  truth.  Indeed  we  have  reason  to  believe  that  the  Bishop  him- 
self has  acknowledged,  in  private  circles,  that  the  representations  by 
which  we  are  aggrieved  had  not  the  fouudation  in  fact  which  he 
had  supposed  when  they  were  put  forth.  If  this  be  so,  Christian 
manliness  requires  that  they  should  be  as  publicly  retracted  as 
they  were  publicly  made ; while  the  advancement  of  Christ’s  king- 
dom demands  that  all  attempts  at  missionary  interference  should  be 
abandoned. 

In  conclusion,  your  committee  recommend  for  your  adoption  the 
following  resolutions ; — 

1.  Resolved,  That  we  approve  of  the  sentiments  expressed  in  the 
paper  read  by  Dr.  Wood,  and  of  the  closing  affirmations  submitted  in 
it  to  our  consideration,  and  do  heartily  adopt  the  same  as  an  expres- 
sion of  our  views  in  relation  to  the  subject  of  “ Interference  in  Foreign 
Missions.” 

2.  Resolved,  That,  in  accordance  with  the  Report,  we  rejoice  in’ the 
success  of  all  Evangelical  Missions,  by  whatever  denomination  they 
are  sustained,  and  do  cheerfully  accord  them  all  the  freedom  in  Chris- 
tian labor  which  we  ask  for  ourselves  ; but  against  any  “ interference 
of  one  denomination  with  the  missionary  work  of  another” — at  least 
till  the  conversion  of  the  world  is  much  further  advanced  than  it 
is  likely  to  be  in  our  day — we  do  hereby  record  our  most  solemn 
PROTEST. 

We  also  recommend,  that  the  Report  read  by  Dr.  Wood  be  printed, 
not  only  with  the  minutes  of  this  meeting,  but  separately  ; and  that 
copies  of  it  be  sent,  under  the  direction  of  the  Prudential  Committee, 
as  far  as  possible,  to  all  centres  of  missionary  influence,  and  especially 
to  all  Evangelical  Missionary  Societies,  in  this  country  and  throughout 
the  world. 

This  report  was  accepted,  and  the  resolutions  were  adopted  by 
the  Board. 


